Articles by Clark Williams-Derry

L.A. tries to get itself out of its sprawled mess.

Well, from the LA Times, at least. 

The paper's had a series of guest editorials about traffic, transit and urban planning -- specifically, how sprawling, congested LA can get itself out of the fix it's put itself into over the last 60 years or so.  The LA area is surprisingly dense, but the population is spread out fairly uniformly over a large area -- which makes it very hard to service the region cost-effectively using transit.  At the same time, building new roads has become both exhorbitantly expensive and politically unpalatable.

Sounds a little like much of the rest of urban America, no?

To summarize...

Popping corn

Every time I post something about biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel), it gets, shall we say, spirited comments. Passions run hot on both sides, with opinions split between those who think that biofuels are one of the most promising solutions to America's petroleum dependence and a great way of reducing climate-warming emissions, and those who think that that biofuels are mostly a costly and wasteful distraction.

What do I think? I posted a longer post on that subject on the Cascadia Scorecard Weblog. Here's a Cliff Notes version.

• Corn ethanol's chief critic says that it's a waste of energy -- ie., that it takes more fossil fuel energy to grow corn and distill it into ethanol than the ethanol itself contains. But he uses outdated data.
• A widely cited USDA researcher says that corn ethanol can reduce fossil fuel use -- ie., that corn ethanol contains considerably more energy than is contained in the fossil fuels used to farm corn and distill ethanol. But he relies on some generous assumptions, and ignores some significant energy costs.
• Averaging the two views, it seems that corn ethanol probably uses about as much fossil fuel energy to produce as is contained in the gasoline it displaces -- maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but not a lot either way.
• Which means, as things currently stand, that I'm much more interested in promoting fuel efficient vehicles and compact urban design than I am in even discussing corn ethanol. Those steps can have a big impact on fossil fuel consumption. Ramping up corn ethanol production--unless I'm badly mistaken--won't.

Now, obviously, there are lots of other points to be made both for and against corn ethanol; and these arguments don't carry over into biodiesel or cellulose ethanol. But they do make me feel like shrugging and changing the subject whenever someone gets all excited about corn ethanol, either pro or con.

Clark Williams-Derry

Cars that get five hundred miles per gallon?  According to this piece by LA Times editorialist Max Boot, it's possible using today's technology, including plug-in hybrids and "flexible fuel" vehicles that run on both petroleum and biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Now, I'm inclined to agree with the editorial's main points:  North America's petroleum dependence is a profound strategic and economic vulnerability; and we can make our transportation system much, much more fuel efficient using existing technologies--and without waiting decades for new technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells, to catch on.

But what about this statement:  "How to do better? Biking to work or taking the train isn't the answer. Even if Americans drive less, global oil demand will surge because of breakneck growth in India and China."

What on earth is he talking about?

Clark Williams-Derry

Wonder no longer: oil and gas get subsidies out the wazoo. Here's the latest example from British Columbia...

The province will spend $408 million over 15 years to bolster northeastern B.C.'s oil and gas industry, Minister of Energy and Mines Richard Neufeld said Tuesday, which includes new or expanded support for resource road construction, community infrastructure, education and the reclamation of abandoned natural gas wells.

Of course, this sort of subusidy is just the tip of the iceberg: in much of the US, oil and gas extraction get special tax treatment -- and, some would argue, privileged access to public lands; gas & automobile taxes don't pay for the full cost of roads; the health costs of car accidents and smog aren't included in the price of highway fuels; and the risks associated with global warming are borne by everyone across the globe, not just by those lucky enough to be able to afford to drive.

To me, this puts the subsidies for, say, wind power in perspective. Renewable energy subsidies probably don't give an unfair advantage; they're just a way of levelling the playing field, so that--given all of the subsidies that already go to fossil fuels--wind and solar can compete on something approaching even footing.